Hi Chris, Your first point is certainly on everyone's minds. My two cents are that this kind of has to be the last paper where we can get away with this. If it's truly a letter, then I think it's more than OK to simply add one or two throwaway sentences, e.g., "A full investigation of the cause of these detections will be presented in future work; here, we take the conservative approach and treat all the measurements as upper limits on the 21 cm signal." I haven't read the draft yet, but I suspect there's already very similar language in there.
For the future (i.e. PAPER-128), our plan has been to release a slew of papers together, including the detailed investigations of the systematics. These will include both data jackknifes (assuming we have the SNR on our "detections" to do meaningful ones) and pipeline simulations (work by Nithya and Nichole have already shown some suggestive evidence of these kinds of detections... but I think we need to run end-to-end to be truly convincing). For talks, I've just been using the line "when your systematics are detected at ~2sigma, your jackknifes can't tell you anything." That's not completely true, but it does tend to silence the objection. Cheers, Jonathan On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Chris Carilli <[email protected]> wrote: > great work. some comments: > > 1. we are slowly backing ourselves into a position where it is getting > harder to explain-away the 'detections presented as upper limits' (eg fig > 6 vs table 1). leaves us open to the standard attack that we don't > understand our instrument. not sure what to do about this, but it has > become a fairly typical question in talks. any suggestions? > > 2. the axis labels on many of the plots are sort of unreadable > > 3. it says 'a slight error resulting in a sub-optimal filter shape' > slight seems to be an understatement, given the factor 4 change in the > results from the same data. or does the factor 4 stem from other factors > as well (integration time?)? can you spell out more clearly the origin > in difference in filter shape? is it just a different assumed primary beam > shape? > > 4. fig 6 should probably say in caption the k range averaged over, and > might put prediction curves on here for fiducial and cold models of > reionization. > > thanks for the efforts. again, great work, > chris > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > Here's a draft of a short paper by Matt K. with psa64 multi redshift > > points. The redshift 11 points turned out to be more than an order of > > magnitude lower than our previous! The processing is basically identical > > to > > Ali et al but with the updated fringe rate filter. Take a look. Comments, > > edits are welcome at every level. > > > > My thinking is to submit this simultaneously with a short companion paper > > comparing with XRay heating models generated by Andrei. Look for that > > draft > > very soon and I'd be happy to give an update on a datacon. > > > > Thanks, > > ~Danny > > > > -- > > ================================================================ > > Daniel C. Jacobs > > KE7DHQ > > National Science Foundation Fellow > > Arizona State University > > School of Earth and Space Exploration > > Low Frequency Cosmology > > Phone: (505) 500 4521 > > Homepage: http://loco.lab.asu.edu/danny_jacobs/ > > MWA: mwatelescope.org > > HERA: reionization.org > > PAPER: eor.berkeley.edu > > > > > >
